→edit summary: Replying to 172.250.237.36 (using reply-link) |
→help request: בברכה |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
::: You are correct and I was wrong. I didn't look in all the right places to see that El C's talk page is one of the very rare talk pages with that level of protection. This would indeed make it difficult for you to open a new section on their talk page.<p>The fallback is to write a message to El C on your own talk page including a {{tlx|ping|El C}} template. It's possible that won't work, either, but I know of nothing else other than to wait for the semi-protection on El C's talk page to expire.<p>One more thing, [[WP:NOTFORUM|NOTFORUM]] applies to both articles and discussion pages and while it is hard to discern exactly what in the policies and rules allows it, it is very common to simply remove such material.<p>I see that you say you intended this to be a suggestion for a new section of the article, but when I read it I had to agree with the action to remove it: it was not phrased as a suggested addition, it contained no references, and appeared mostly to be a personal essay related to, but not directly addressing, the topics being discussed on the talk page.<p>There's nothing to keep you from making another edit proposal to the article, but the material you propose should adhere to the normal standards for article content, including references to published, reliable sources. '''[[user:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#2eb85c">— jmcgnh</span>]]<sup><small>[[user talk:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#1e5213">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/jmcgnh|<span style="color:#73b516">(contribs)</span>]]</small></sup>''' 01:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC) |
::: You are correct and I was wrong. I didn't look in all the right places to see that El C's talk page is one of the very rare talk pages with that level of protection. This would indeed make it difficult for you to open a new section on their talk page.<p>The fallback is to write a message to El C on your own talk page including a {{tlx|ping|El C}} template. It's possible that won't work, either, but I know of nothing else other than to wait for the semi-protection on El C's talk page to expire.<p>One more thing, [[WP:NOTFORUM|NOTFORUM]] applies to both articles and discussion pages and while it is hard to discern exactly what in the policies and rules allows it, it is very common to simply remove such material.<p>I see that you say you intended this to be a suggestion for a new section of the article, but when I read it I had to agree with the action to remove it: it was not phrased as a suggested addition, it contained no references, and appeared mostly to be a personal essay related to, but not directly addressing, the topics being discussed on the talk page.<p>There's nothing to keep you from making another edit proposal to the article, but the material you propose should adhere to the normal standards for article content, including references to published, reliable sources. '''[[user:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#2eb85c">— jmcgnh</span>]]<sup><small>[[user talk:jmcgnh|<span style="color:#1e5213">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/jmcgnh|<span style="color:#73b516">(contribs)</span>]]</small></sup>''' 01:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::Hello [[user:jmcgnh]], thanks for your feedback. I see what you are saying. I went through the history of the talk page, and in the "new section" that I composed, unless one reads the last sentence (which actually some other editors did) you would easily mistake my edit for pontification - which is wrong. I was not pontificating. Luckily, although [[user:El C]] mistakenly thinks that I was pontificating, three or four other editors DID read the last sentence, which was; '''Should there or shouldn't there be a section on tactical errors in police procedures made during the arrest of the suspect?''' and simply began a new section, in which the topic that I raised is now being discussed. This just shows that due to my inexperience, I SHOULD have put that sentence in the beginning, so that a casual reader such as [[user:El C]] would not mistake my edit as pontification and fitting the category of [[WP:NOTFORUM]]. This is great. Thanks for clearing things up. Keep up the good work. בס״ד [[Special:Contributions/172.250.237.36|172.250.237.36]] ([[User talk:172.250.237.36#top|talk]]) 03:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC) |
::::Hello [[user:jmcgnh]], thanks for your feedback. I see what you are saying. I went through the history of the talk page, and in the "new section" that I composed, unless one reads the last sentence (which actually some other editors did) you would easily mistake my edit for pontification - which is wrong. I was not pontificating. Luckily, although [[user:El C]] mistakenly thinks that I was pontificating, three or four other editors DID read the last sentence, which was; '''Should there or shouldn't there be a section on tactical errors in police procedures made during the arrest of the suspect?''' and simply began a new section, in which the topic that I raised is now being discussed. This just shows that due to my inexperience, I SHOULD have put that sentence in the beginning, so that a casual reader such as [[user:El C]] would not mistake my edit as pontification and fitting the category of [[WP:NOTFORUM]]. This is great. Thanks for clearing things up. Keep up the good work. בס״ד [[Special:Contributions/172.250.237.36|172.250.237.36]] ([[User talk:172.250.237.36#top|talk]]) 03:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
בסייעתא דשמיא, my suggestion would be to keep proposals brief. Let your sources speak for themselves. Hope this helps! בברכה, [[User:El_C|El_C]] 16:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Please... == |
== Please... == |
Revision as of 16:25, 22 July 2020
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Recent changes patrol
You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (172.250.237.36) is used to identify you instead.
In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on , or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
before the question on this page.
Again, welcome! Train of Knowledge (Talk) 04:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
help request
- HELLO Train of Knowledge (Talk) I have been reverted again after editing a talk page. I am not able to go to the editor's talk page for clarification. Thanks in advance, for any help in either clarification or otherwise. Keep up the good work! 172.250.237.36 (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- An article talk page is used to discuss specific improvements to the page. NOTFORUM allows discussions that appear to not be directed at an improvement of the page to be deleted. Your discourse on Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks was not in the form of a proposal to improve the page, so it was deleted.
- I don't know why you are unable to go to the editor's page to ask for clarification. That editor's page User talk:El C is not protected and you appear to have mastered the skills needed to add a section to a talk page. I recommend, however, that you learn a bit more about talk page protocol and how to respond to other editors without starting a new section every time. Perhaps WP:THREAD will help you. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello, user:jmcgnh here is the screenshot of what happens when I attempt to "talk" to user:El C:
https://i.postimg.cc/0Q7sNmFD/2020-07-19-1351-53-Screenshot.png
Thanks so very much for your feedback and your wonderful help. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)- You are correct and I was wrong. I didn't look in all the right places to see that El C's talk page is one of the very rare talk pages with that level of protection. This would indeed make it difficult for you to open a new section on their talk page.
The fallback is to write a message to El C on your own talk page including a
{{ping|El C}}
template. It's possible that won't work, either, but I know of nothing else other than to wait for the semi-protection on El C's talk page to expire.One more thing, NOTFORUM applies to both articles and discussion pages and while it is hard to discern exactly what in the policies and rules allows it, it is very common to simply remove such material.
I see that you say you intended this to be a suggestion for a new section of the article, but when I read it I had to agree with the action to remove it: it was not phrased as a suggested addition, it contained no references, and appeared mostly to be a personal essay related to, but not directly addressing, the topics being discussed on the talk page.
There's nothing to keep you from making another edit proposal to the article, but the material you propose should adhere to the normal standards for article content, including references to published, reliable sources. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello user:jmcgnh, thanks for your feedback. I see what you are saying. I went through the history of the talk page, and in the "new section" that I composed, unless one reads the last sentence (which actually some other editors did) you would easily mistake my edit for pontification - which is wrong. I was not pontificating. Luckily, although user:El C mistakenly thinks that I was pontificating, three or four other editors DID read the last sentence, which was; Should there or shouldn't there be a section on tactical errors in police procedures made during the arrest of the suspect? and simply began a new section, in which the topic that I raised is now being discussed. This just shows that due to my inexperience, I SHOULD have put that sentence in the beginning, so that a casual reader such as user:El C would not mistake my edit as pontification and fitting the category of WP:NOTFORUM. This is great. Thanks for clearing things up. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- You are correct and I was wrong. I didn't look in all the right places to see that El C's talk page is one of the very rare talk pages with that level of protection. This would indeed make it difficult for you to open a new section on their talk page.
- Hello, user:jmcgnh here is the screenshot of what happens when I attempt to "talk" to user:El C:
בסייעתא דשמיא, my suggestion would be to keep proposals brief. Let your sources speak for themselves. Hope this helps! בברכה, El_C 16:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Please...
...see WP:FORUM. That is why your edit on Talk:Killing of Rayshard Brooks was undone. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you so very much for your prompt response. I looked there. I am confused because I am under the impression that refers to articles. My edit was on the TALK page not the actual article. Does this mean that talk pages are also being reverted periodically for lack of editing standards? Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks again user:Drmies for your short answer regarding my suggestion for a new section to the Killing of Rayshard Brooks article, which was made in the (talk) section. It appears that the topic's been taken up by a few other editors. Is this pertinent? Thanks for your prompt and alacritous feedback! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Template:Z33 —valereee (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello —valereee. I clicked on the link, but I have no idea what this entails. Thanks for posting this. It is very interesting. I hope to hear more from you in the future, and I know you are only trying to help me learn about Wikipedia. I am a relatively inexperienced editor. Still I apologize but it just confused me!! Is this for one of those Barnstar things? I didn't do anything that great. I participated in a few of those consensus things on a few of those talk pages. It almost looks like you might want to punish me for something instead, but I'm sure that is not your point, because I'm not "edit warring" and not "personally attacking" other editors. If you have time, perhaps you would like me to know more about why you are doing this. Thanks for the feedback. Keep up the good work. בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
- This means you've edited in an article covered by discretionary sanctions, which means if you break the rules, even out of ignorance, you're liable to be treated as if you'd done it intentionally. In order to make sure editors realize they are editing in DS articles, we post this message to their user talk.
- You keep talking about how inexperienced you are, so I'll tell you again very directly: a contentious article under discretionary sanctions is not a good place to learn how to edit Wikipedia. —valereee (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- —valereee EDIT: Which article - just to have this "in writing" so I know where we stand? Thanks so very much for the feedback. You're doing a great job. Keep up the good work!! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Almost every article you've edited in the past two weeks. Killing of George Floyd, George Floyd, Killing of Rayshard Brooks, George Floyd protests, and Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone are all under DS. Also any article about a living person, even if it's not under DS, is something you shouldn't mess with. You added a 'Controversial Events' section to Roland G. Fryer Jr., I'd highly recommend you not do things like that until you've done a lot more reading of policy, as it could easily be considered a libelous WP:BLP violation and nothing will get you blocked faster. —valereee (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- —valereee EDIT: Which article - just to have this "in writing" so I know where we stand? Thanks so very much for the feedback. You're doing a great job. Keep up the good work!! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi —valereee! Thank you so very much! The only one of those I edited was Roland G. Fryer Jr., and the content under that new heading was already in the article. I'm sorry, but, as you might see in my comments, almost every edit I made has at the end of the comment - "This is Wikipedia. Please revert or revise as seen fit." So, I hope that makes it clear, I am not "edit warring" and I am not "attacking" anyone or anything of the sort. In the other articles you mentioned, half of them I've participated in discussions in the "talk" pages, but not edited them, and the content of my edits have been along the lines of many of what other editors have also stated. Hope this makes it easy for you to see my perspective? I don't know why you're doing this since what I'm doing is not much different from what is already there on those talk pages. Please specify what you mean, or just redact my comments that were not in line with the WP:BP rule (I'm going to click on that pretty soon!). I know you've done that redacting thing to one of my other talk entries! You remember, this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Floyd#Should_there_be_a_separate_section_for_George_Floyd's_legal_troubles? and you're now participating in my question in the "Teahouse" as well on that topic. I cannot edit any articles that are locked anyway, since I am an "IP USER." Thanks so very much for all your help. Please feel free to continue to involve yourself in the talk pages, that is what Wikipedia is all about! This is really great, thanks so very, very much for helping me to learn about Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Use of time
Please reconsider your use of time and the impact it has on other editors. You appear to be making edits to some articles, but also an inordinate amount of time on Talk pages of articles, Talk pages of editors, and at Teahouse. The primary focus of editors is to improve articles. Lengthy pleas to help you understand editors' intent, Wikipedia guidelines, etc., divert people from what is needed. Please read Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. David notMD (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- To reinforce the other editor's advice, you write (repeatedly) "I am a relatively inexperienced editor." Accepting that as true, please stay away from contentious articles, and learn by observation rather than pleading for editor after editor after editor to explain stuff to you. David notMD (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- EDIT: David notMD Please do not "waste" any more time on my Teahouse questions. I hope that another editor can jump in, similar to the way you "jumped in" to my question. Thank you for the interesting link. I'm hopeful that none of this will apply to me, and as far as me being encouraging of others, polite, helpful, and the like, I thought that was how Wikipedia means for us to behave. Thanks so very much for the feedback. You're doing a great job. Keep up the good work!! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
edit summary
In your edit summary you wrote You almost seem like you are lording over me and this is making me feel kind of uncomfortable? Can you be a little more understanding, if you please? This is Wikipedia! I am trying to be understanding, and I am giving you excellent advice. I'm not sure what you mean by 'lording over' you, but I'm sorry to hear you're feeling uncomfortable. It's best to communicate directly via talk pages instead of in edit summaries; people often miss them. I almost missed this one. —valereee (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hi —valereee! I'm glad you read that! Sorry for any misunderstanding! Almost any edit summary I put onto my edits just consists of a few sentences from the edit itself, does that make sense? So if someone clicks on 'History' and sees that comment on my edit, if one clicks to see the actual edit, the contents of that comment is almost 100% likely to be in the edit itself. As you will find, those sentences are in the edit of that same "edit summary" and I'm glad you are able to read it and gain some meaning from it. The expression "lording over" means when an experienced person makes either inexperienced people like myself for example, or even any people, feel as if they're being treated in a pejorative, perfunctory manner. Your manner may not necessarily be pejorative, but it certainly was very much perfunctory, and left me uncomfortably confused. This is mainly due to my lack of experience in Wikipedia. I was told by another editor that I'm making other editors feel uncomfortable by the mere mention that "I'm an inexperienced editor" but I can't help that; 1) I won't become "experienced" overnight; 2) I'm not going to start pretending that I'm more experienced than I am, and by not letting other editors know that I'm inexperienced will certainly impart confusion due to both, my inexperience, and their assumption that I know what I'm talking about. So as much as I'd like to participate in Wikipedia as if I was an experienced, thoughtful, and knowledgeable editor - that's sadly not, as yet, possible. I do use talk pages, as you can see, you're using MY talk page right now!! That's it for now, I'm trying to get through that link you gave me - WP:BP. Can you give me any clues as to how this topic applies to my situation please? I don't mean in a general sense - I know it applies to you, to me, and to all editors!! I mean in a specific case. Just one example - if you can maybe even several examples. Don't worry about it if you're too busy, or if I'm taking up too much of your precious editing time. I know that Wikipedia - is really time consuming! I spent about four hours in the "sandbox" editing the page on Professor Fryer!! Again, thanks for your help and for your apology! I certainly forgive you now, that you've seen my situation and apologized for it! Don't hesitate to apologize to me, I always forgive anyone who apologizes to me. What I DON'T do is forgive preemptively (I know some people who do). So I definitely forgive you and if you do it again (make me uncomfortable) please apologize again, and I will forgive you again. Keep up the good work!! בס״ד 172.250.237.36 (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)